D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[CleverNickName]

Okay, so what's the advantage of having a weaker trident? What does a trident do that a spear doesn't?

Absolutely none. They are mechanically identical, just like several other weapons in the game (sickle and club, glaive and halberd, etc.)

What I'm trying to say is, "not getting an advantage" isn't the same thing as "being penalized." A character isn't being punished by choosing a trident (or any other weapon) for thematic reasons.

 

[Sithlord]

Spears need a boost in general. They are the king of weapons after all. I reskin them to be like swords

 

[jmartkdr2]

Absolutely none. They are mechanically identical, just like several other weapons in the game (sickle and club, glaive and halberd, etc.)

What I'm trying to say is, "not getting an advantage" isn't the same thing as "being penalized." A character isn't being punished by choosing a trident (or any other weapon) for thematic reasons.

It's weaker than any of the other martial options, so you're deliberately using a subpar option. Whether you call that "a bonus for picking a longsword" or "a penalty for picking a trident," the game favors longswords over tridents.

The simplest solution would be to make tridents simple weapons, so that they're actually redundant. But as martial weapons, if you pick trident you're nearly always taking a hit to mechanics for roleplay reasons - and you shouldn't need to choose between roleplaying and effectiveness at the character concept level.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Impresses the audience.

Retarii didn't fight with net and trident because it was more effective; they fought because it was a great spectacle.

What's the bonus to charisma checks for using a trident again?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Your open-table point tangentially gets at my main objection to milestone levelling: how do I-as-DM reward the characters that take the risks and-or drive the action and not reward those who don't, and at the same time avoid accusations of favouritism?

Answer: a coded and somewhat transparent reward system granular enough to make these character differentiations at the by-encounter or by-event level. Also known as xp.

Question: If I played a super high stealth 5e rogue who stayed physically far from combat and in little danger but dealt out a majority of the damage in a battle....would I get full XP?

Second Question: Do you actually have a problem at your table with players who just don't join battles at all because they are afraid of losing a character? I have never....in my 30+ years of gaming ever seen that happen with the rare exception of an almost dead character the rest of the party was trying to rescue. Everyone fights every battle....and we have used milestone levelling exclusively since 3e Age of Worms.

 

[Lanefan]

Question: If I played a super high stealth 5e rogue who stayed physically far from combat and in little danger but dealt out a majority of the damage in a battle....would I get full XP?

Yes for the battle; the Rogue got involved and helped out.

Had, however, said Rogue not done anything to help in the battle (e.g. all she did was keep watch outside the door) then no xp for it for her.

Second Question: Do you actually have a problem at your table with players who just don't join battles at all because they are afraid of losing a character?

At my own table, not very often lately; but it was almost chronic with one or two players in the past. At the table where I'm a player it's happened enough to be a Known Issue, though it's certainly improved of late.

I have never....in my 30+ years of gaming ever seen that happen with the rare exception of an almost dead character the rest of the party was trying to rescue. Everyone fights every battle....and we have used milestone levelling exclusively since 3e Age of Worms.

I'm talking about characters in good condition. Obviously if a character is close to death or otherwise incapable of doing much of use, that's different.

And it can be more subtle than simply staying out completely, e.g. a Fighter who somehow never ends up facing the toughest/deadliest opponent in a group of foes, as in a spoken or unspoken "You guys deal with the Giant, I've got the Orcs" type of thing. Once in a while: fine. As a pattern: annoying to say the least, for those who get smoked by the Giant.

 

[Lanefan]

What's the bonus to charisma checks for using a trident again?

Charisma checks? Nah. But intimidate checks? Now you're talkin'!

 

[billd91]

It's weaker than any of the other martial options, so you're deliberately using a subpar option. Whether you call that "a bonus for picking a longsword" or "a penalty for picking a trident," the game favors longswords over tridents.

The simplest solution would be to make tridents simple weapons, so that they're actually redundant. But as martial weapons, if you pick trident you're nearly always taking a hit to mechanics for roleplay reasons - and you shouldn't need to choose between roleplaying and effectiveness at the character concept level.

Subpar... by a point, on average. Normally I would say that including options in a game that are dominated by other options is a bad idea - but when it's as little as a point of damage - 2 at max - getting one's undies in a bundle about it is an overreaction. It is the only martial melee weapon with the thrown property and even though the spear has the same basic stats as a simple weapon, characters that have martial weapon proficiencies lose nothing of significance picking it over the spear. So it's not even clear that it is a fully dominated option for a fighter. It does less damage than a longsword, battleaxe, or warhammer... but only at ranges from 0 to 5 feet. The trident beats the hell out of them at any range over 5 feet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just a thread for "how would you change 5E" -- expect the explicit rule is that you only get to alter it by elimination, and you can only eliminate one element (although that may be broadly defined, as you will see in my example ).

For my part, I think I would get rid of non-human PC races. All of them. Maybe it is my players but no one I know actually plays a non human in a decidedly alien way. It's all rubber foreheads and free minor crunch enhancements. I think he world I would build in D&D would be much better with only human PCs, AND the image in my head of the PCs would likely be closer to what they are supposed to be from the players' perspectives.

What ONE THING would you remove from 5E?

Saving throws. Everything is an attack.

 

[Oofta]

But a trident doesn't "remove a ton of options," in fact it adds two (thrown and versatile). As for the perceived "weakness" of d6 vs d8 damage, you're talking about 1 point of damage, on average. Tempest in a teapot.

But ... but ... its 5 times more expensive and 1/3 heavier then a spear! For the same damage, range and versatility as a spear! Totally broken.